Roberts on the State of the Union: ‘I’m Not Sure Why We’re There’

When President Obama ripped the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision during his State of the Union address in January, Justice Samuel Alito, for one, appeared to be none-so-pleased. (Click here and here for LB pieces on the dustup.)

But Chief Justice Roberts? During the telecast, the chief sat impassively, hands at his sides, while many of our nation’s elected leaders cheered. But on Tuesday, the chief confirmed that the incident left a bad taste in his mouth, calling the scene “very troubling” and saying that the annual speech has “degenerated to a political pep rally.” Click here for the AP story.

The remarks came during the Q&A portion of a speech Roberts gave Tuesday at the University of Alabama law school. Responding to a question, according to the AP, Roberts said anyone was free to criticize the court.

“So I have no problems with that,” he said. “On the other hand, there is the issue of the setting, the circumstances and the decorum.

“The image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court — according the requirements of protocol — has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling.”

According to the story, Roberts pushed forward, wondering if the justices should continue the tradition of attending the speech. “I’m not sure why we’re there.” Justice Antonin Scalia seems to agree with Roberts — he no longer attends the speech. Only six of the nine justices attended Obama’s address in January.

During his remarks, Roberts also criticized the Senate’s method of confirming new justices, saying, according to the AP, that senators improperly try to make political points by asking questions they know nominees are ethically barred from answering.

About Law Blog

The Law Blog covers the legal arena’s hot cases, emerging trends and big personalities. It’s brought to you by lead writer Jacob Gershman with contributions from across The Wall Street Journal’s staff. Jacob comes here after more than half a decade covering the bare-knuckle politics of New York State. His inside-the-room reporting left him steeped in legal and regulatory issues that continue to grab headlines.

Must Reads

Plaintiffs' lawyers dodged a bullet last year when the U.S. Supreme Court spared a quarter-century-old precedent that had served as the legal linchpin of the modern investor class-action case. Despite that win, a new report suggests that securities class actions have lost some of their firepower.

In a week in which images of Prophet Muhammad were connected to acts of terror and defiant expressions of freedom, a sculpture of the prophet of Islam inside the U.S. Supreme Court has drawn little notice.

Alan Dershowitz has vowed to slap a defamation suit against the two lawyers who claimed in a court document that Florida financier Jeffrey Epstein arranged sexual liaisons for him with an underage prostitute. Those lawyers have beaten him to the punch.

The salacious allegations against Prince Andrew and Alan Dershowitz that surfaced in a federal lawsuit involving convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein have generated international attention. Drawing less coverage is the lawsuit itself -- a case with the potential to expand the rights of crime victims during federal investigations.